At least 1 non-Fox reporter/host gets it

[sirs]

CBS's Rodriguez: 'Undignified' Obama 'Offering No Evidence' of GOP Taking Foreign Money
By: Kyle Drennen
October 11, 2010

Grilling Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell on Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez questioned President Obama attacking Republicans over unproven claims of accepting foreign campaign donations: "Why did he spend so much time talking about the Republicans trying to steal the election? Offering no evidence of that. Isn't it a bit undignified for the President to resort to that?"
 
The Democratic governor attempted to defend the President: "Well, the President's got dual roles, he's the commander-in-chief...but he's also the campaigner-in-chief....[talking] about what's to be afraid of....the unreported money that's coming into this campaign through groups that we'll never know who contributed to, that's something our citizens should be worried about." Rodriguez pressed him: "If you gave them evidence to support that claim, it would be one thing. But, to make claims like this without backing them up, seems not right."

At the beginning of the interview, Rodriguez rightfully observed:

So your party has this opportunity to have the President of the United States come to your state to try to convince the voters to go Democratic in three weeks and he spends a good chunk of the time accusing the Republicans of trying to steal the election with money from foreign companies. Don't you think, Governor, that voters would rather hear how he's going ? how Democrats are going to create jobs and grow the economy?

As NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard earlier reported, on Sunday's Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer openly mocked the Democratic line of attack as he challenged Obama advisor David Axelrod if it was "the best you can do?"

Near the end of the Monday segment, Rodriguez wondered: "It can't all be the Republicans' fault that the numbers are so bad for the Democrats in the polls. Where do you think that your party and the president are failing to get out the message?" Rendell argued: "Well, I think from the very beginning, we got out-spun on things like stimulus and health care reform, which have done great things for the citizens.... those things are enormously popular, but we got out-spun."

Enormously popular??  Right, that has to be it.     

[sirs]

Schieffer Mocks Axelrod: Is Complaining About GOP Ad Dollars ?The Best You Can Do??
By Noel Sheppard | October 10, 2010

CBS?s Bob Schieffer on Sunday mocked President Obama?s senior adviser David Axelrod for echoing last week?s unsubstantiated charge by a liberal website that the Chamber of Commerce is funneling foreign money to support Republican candidates.

?The New York Times looked into the Chamber specifically and said the Chamber really isn?t putting foreign money into the campaign,? said the Face the Nation host.

?This part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts,? chided Schieffer.

When Axelrod continued to press the issue, Schieffer said almost laughing, ?If the only charge, three weeks into the election that the Democrats can make is that there?s somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do??

BOB SCHIEFFER: Let?s switch to politics. Last week, of course, the President?s on the campaign trail. He?s on the campaign trail just virtually all the time now. While he was out there, the Democrats put out a-- an ad that?s released this morning that blames the Republicans and specifically the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for injecting foreign money into campaigns. The President?s words on the trail last week were, ?groups that received foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections. 

Now I want to ask you about that because the New York Times looked into the Chamber specifically and said the Chamber really isn?t putting foreign money into the campaign. That it does charge its foreign affiliates dues that bring in less than a hundred and thousand dollars a year. A lot of organizations including Labor Unions doing-- do that. But the Chamber has an annual budget of two hundred million dollars and it says, along with that, it keeps these foreign dues separate. They do spend heavily in politics, twenty-five million so far. They expect to spend fifty million. But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that it?s anything other than peanuts?

Great question. As the Times reported Saturday:

But a closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washingtonspin cycle ? where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself ? than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.

Organizations from both ends of the political spectrum, from liberal ones like the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Sierra Club to conservative groups like the National Rifle Association, have international affiliations and get money from foreign entities while at the same time pushing political causes in the United States.

In addition, more than 160 political action committees active in campaigning have been set up by corporations that are based overseas, including military contractors like B.A.E. Systems and pharmaceutical giants like GlaxoSmithKline, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research service. [?]

Richard L. Hasen, an election-law specialist at LoyolaLawSchoolin Los Angeles, said there were legitimate questions about whether foreign money could be making its way into campaigns, particularly because many groups are not required to disclose their donors. But he added, ?I?ve seen no proof of the chamber funneling a penny of foreign money into U.S.elections.?

Readers are reminded: this is from the New York Times. So was this:

The issue of the chamber?s funding first gained notice this week when ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal advocacy group, posted a lengthy piece with the headline ?Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ?U.S.? Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads.?

The piece detailed the chamber?s overseas memberships, but it provided no evidence that the money generated overseas had been used in United States campaigns. Still, liberal groups likeMoveOn.org pounced on the allegations, resulting in protests at the chamber?s offices, a demand for a federal investigation by Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, and ultimately the remarks by Mr. Obama himself.

Indeed. Readers should recall the political ties of CAP, an organization whose staff and Senior Fellows listing reads like a Clintonadministration Who?s Who.

But let?s get back to Schieffer and Axelrod:

DAVID AXELROD: Well, do you have any evidence that it?s not, Bob? (sirs adds...yes, he really did say that)  The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that but they won?t release any information about where their campaign money is coming from. And that?s at the core of the problem here. What we?ve seen in part because of a loophole that the Supreme Court allowed earlier this year, we now see tens of millions of dollars being spent by the Chamber and a number of organizations some of which just cropped up. Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove won-- run one of them. Tens of millions of dollars from undisclosed donors under benign names like the American Crossroads fund. And they?re-- and they?re spending heavily in all of these elections. And one race in Colorado, there?there are six different organizations running negative ads against the Democratic senator there, Michael Bennett. And no one knows where the money is coming from. So I guess, my question back to you and for your next guess is-- guest is, why not simply disclose where this money is coming from? And then all of these questions will be answered.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, that will certainly be fine with me. But I want to go back to this thing about the-- the Chamber of Commerce. If they?re only taking in a hundred thousand dollars a year?

DAVID AXELROD (overlapping): If they are.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you-- you question that. You say they may--

DAVID AXELROD (overlapping): Well, I don?t know. No one knows, Bob. The point is you?they can-- I can assert anything I want. But you have as a good journalist you?d ask me, well, how do we know that?s true? Do you have documentation to prove that? If the Chamber opens up its books and says here?s where our political money is coming from, here are the million dollar, two million or three million dollar contributions we?ve gotten from this company or that industry, then we?ll know. But until they do that, all we have is their assertion.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you-- I guess I would put it this way. If-- if-- if the only charge, three weeks into the election that the Democrats can make is that there?s somehow this may or may not be foreign money coming into the campaign, is that the best you can do?

Indeed, which means that in the course of roughly 24 hours, both the New York Times and Bob Schieffer thought CAP?s claim was largely a bunch of baloney.

Makes you want to check the skies for flying pigs, doesn?t it?


Y tu', Schieffer?

[R.R.]

Cool, I always liked Maggie Rodriguez.

[Kramer]

I'll take it -- that's is two more than we had a week ago. Shows that the Liberal media is FINALLY embarrassed by Obama. Shows that they too have learned that it's finally reached the point where their credibility is on the line.

Now if we could just get morons & dolts that voted for Obama to admit their mistake, then and only then will we be making real progress.

[Kramer]

Way to go Barry! We appreciate all the money you want to raise for us to defeat you...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/124027-rove-backed-group-raised-13m-since-facing-attack-from-obama


Rove-backed group raised $13M since attacks from Obama
By Michael O'Brien - 10/13/10 10:02 AM ET

The GOP-aligned American Crossroads said Wednesday it has raised over $13 million since coming under attack from President Obama.

The group and its campaign affiliate, Crossroads GPS, said it had easily surpassed its initial fundraising goal of $50 million to spend on behalf of Republicans, and has increased its target to $65 million, according to spokesman Jonathan Collegio.

The boffo numbers come after a week in which Obama led Democrats in attacks on the group, which is affiliated with GOP strategists Ed Gillespie and Karl Rove. Both are veterans of President George W. Bush's White House.

Obama accused American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce of possibly receiving money from foreign donors and corporations to fund their electoral activities, a charge the groups deny.

The administration has shown no sign of relenting in their attacks toward the groups, which could have a major impact in the final weeks before Nov. 2, when voters head to the polls in crucial midterm elections.

Collegio said the attacks had only driven interest in the group's activities, and that the increased fundraising would allow Crossroads to spend an additional $10 million in House races, and $5 million more in Senate races.

The Chamber, also in light of Democratic attacks, vowed only to "ramp up" its political activities in the closing weeks of the campaign.

The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday detailed how Crossroads, combined with other allied groups, would be able to spend $50 million on ads in the closing weeks of the campaign to deliver the House to Republicans.

"It’s no wonder Republicans in Congress moved hell and high water to thwart disclosure requirements," said Democratic National Committee (DNC) communications director Brad Woodhouse in response to the WSJ report, referencing the GOP's efforts to block the Disclose Act in the Senate.

[sirs]

[sirs]

BOB SCHIEFFER: Now I want to ask you about that because the New York Times looked into the Chamber specifically and said the Chamber really isn?t putting foreign money into the campaign. That it does charge its foreign affiliates dues that bring in less than a hundred and thousand dollars a year. A lot of organizations including Labor Unions doing-- do that. But the Chamber has an annual budget of two hundred million dollars and it says, along with that, it keeps these foreign dues separate. They do spend heavily in politics, twenty-five million so far. They expect to spend fifty million. But this part about foreign money, that appears to be peanuts, Mister Axelrod, I mean, do you have any evidence that it's anything other than peanuts?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?  (sirs adds...yes, he really did say that)  The fact is that the Chamber has asserted that but they won't release any information about where their campaign money is coming from.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, that will certainly be fine with me. But I want to go back to this thing about the-- the Chamber of Commerce. If they're only taking in a hundred thousand dollars a year?

excerpt from Krauthammers' pre-election post-mortem article:

Most shameless attack campaign (national). President Obama suggesting that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is secretly using foreign money to fund its campaign ads. There's not a shred of evidence that this is true. When Bob Schieffer asked David Axelrod for evidence, he responded, "Well, do you have any evidence that it's not, Bob?"

That's like some lunatic claiming that Obama secretly says Muslim prayers at night that no one can see and no one can hear. You ask: What's your evidence? He says: What's yours that he is not? You say: No one's ever seen or heard him do that. He says: Aha, that's exactly my point.

[sirs]

Public Enemy No. 1: GOP Donors

The White House attack on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce isn't about "disclosure." It's about disarmament. While posing as campaign finance champions, the ultimate goal of the Democratic offensive is to intimidate conservative donors, chill political free speech and drain Republican coffers.

Chamber of Commerce official Bruce Josten tried to educate the public. "(W)e know what the purpose here is," he told ABC News. "It's to harass and intimidate." Josten cited protests and threats against chamber members as retribution for ads the organization ran opposing the federal health care takeover.

But this isn't the first time liberal bullyboys have targeted right-leaning contributors. Far from it.

In August 2008, a former Washington director of MoveOn.org -- the smear merchant group that branded Gen. David Petraeus a traitor for overseeing the successful troop surge in Iraq -- announced a brazen witch hunt against Republican donors. Left-wing political operative Tom Matzzie told The New York Times he would send "warning" letters to 10,000 top GOP givers "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." Matzzie bragged of "going for the jugular" and said the warning letter would be just the first step, "alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives."

Defenders of this brown-shirt initiative played the disclosure card -- hey, they were just providing "information" -- to rationalize the public humiliation of GOP donors.

Matzzie also put up a $100,000 bounty for dirt on conservative political groups "to create a sense of scandal around the groups" and dissuade donors from giving money. The effort was cheered by Accountable America adviser Judd Legum, founder of Think Progress -- the same group leading the attack today on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Yet, Matzzie's group, Accountable America, is itself a 501(c)(4) nonprofit entity that shields the identity of its donors. (The group is required by law to remain nonpartisan, but has described itself as "dedicated to electing Democrats to the state legislature across America.") By targeting direct, hard-money contributors who are required to disclose their occupations, addresses and employers, Matzzie's assault simply created a sunshine-evading incentive to steer campaign donations to soft-money groups that protect donor identities. You know, like Accountable America does.

Piggybacking on the Accountable America foray, Obama's presidential campaign lawyers demanded that the Justice Department block TV stations from airing a documented, factual independent ad spotlighting Obama's longtime working relationship with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama summoned his followers to bombard stations, many of them owned by conservative-leaning Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails to squelch the commercial. Team Obama then tried -- and failed -- to convince the DOJ to investigate and prosecute the American Issues Project, the group that produced the Ayers ad, as well as Dallas billionaire and GOP donor Harold Simmons, who funded it.

Two Obama supporters -- Democratic St. Louis County (Mo.) Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce -- took the next step and threatened to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who sponsored objectionable criticisms of Obama.

In California, gay rights mau-mau-ers compiled black lists and harassment lists of citizens who contributed to the Proposition 8 initiative in defense of traditional marriage. A Los Angeles restaurant whose manager made a small donation to the Prop. 8 campaign was besieged nightly by hordes of protesters who disrupted the business, intimidated patrons and brought employees to tears. Terrified workers at El Coyote Mexican Cafe pooled together $500 to pay off the protesters. A theater director who donated $1,000 to Prop. 8 was forced to resign over the donation.

Anonymous mischief-makers created "Eight Maps," a detailed directory of Prop. 8 donors using Google Maps to pinpoint their residences and businesses. Death threats, enveloped with powdery substances, and boycotts ensued. "When I see those maps," admitted California Voter Foundation President Kim Alexander, "it does leave me with a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach."

It's the same feeling every American should be left with after witnessing the liberal thug-tested, White House-approved donor suppression campaign against fiscal and social conservatives. In the hands of leftist vigilantes, "disclosure" is a deadly bludgeon; political free speech is the casualty.


Article

[sirs]